I hear Republicans sometimes say that "Democrats want open borders" with regard to Latin American immigration. But you only year Democrats embracing illegal immigration, not calling for changes in legal immigration. I can't recall any national politician calling for it and Bernie Sanders shot down the idea of open borders when asked about it in an interview with the comment that "wages would end up being 2 or 3 dollars an hour".

But, last night a candidate won in New York who wants to abolish ICE. That isn't going to happen since ICE was formed after 9/11 and does more than look for economic migrants. With Trump causing so much embrace of illegal immigration I have been perplexed as to why either open borders, or an increase in quotas has not been called for. It doesn't make sense to me to say "they contribute", "they are only looking for a better life" and make other romantic arguments for illegal economic migration, without calling for an increase in legal economic migration. Since you are effectively saying that more people than our legal limit is fine - unless there is an implicit argument being made for an illegal workforce depressing wages and working conditions. I wonder if Trump has driven the left to embrace Latin American economic migration enough that there will now be a push for an open border. I think that much of the business leaders, particularly real estate investors, would embrace the idea as it would increase their sales/profits.

What Democrats want is a visa-less border. That's a common arrangement between allies in the rest of the world.

_________________Make lots of noise
Kiss lots of boys
Or kiss lots of girls
If that's something you're into
When the straight and narrow
Gets a little too straight
Roll up a joint, or don't
Just follow your arrow
Wherever it points, yeah
Follow your arrow
Wherever it points

By every metric there is. President Bush said no country was more important to the US than Mexico.

_________________Make lots of noise
Kiss lots of boys
Or kiss lots of girls
If that's something you're into
When the straight and narrow
Gets a little too straight
Roll up a joint, or don't
Just follow your arrow
Wherever it points, yeah
Follow your arrow
Wherever it points

By every metric there is. President Bush said no country was more important to the US than Mexico.

I've said the same thing (in meaning our two countries should be allied) and lord knows I'm no President Bush. But that's a big ass air quotes "should" there. Mexico is certainly one of the most important countries to the US in many ways that have nothing to do with our two nations being allied with each other. Drug cartels rule Mexico. They are having elections this year. Over a 120 candidates have been murdered in Mexico since announcing their candidacies. That is the country that is on our southern border. No other country. That. 120 plus candidates for elective office murdered in one election year and we have more to go yet. And this isn’t counting others killed along with the candidates.

Mexico just allowed thousands of migrants escaping dire realities in Central America to cross through their country and attempt to enter the US illegally. So there's a huge difference between import and ally. Our two nations SHOULD be completely and absolutely allied. The reality is that we can't be true allies with a nation like Mexico. We can and will certainly go through the motions and present the facade to the world. Like we do with so many things. However, incrementally, but steadily, Mexico is weakening the US every single day. And given the incredibly dysfunctional shithole our own country has devolved into over the last 30 years, we don't really need an even worse shithole country right below us letting even more air out of our badly underfilled and already leaky balloon.

_________________Falsehood will fly on the wings of the wind, and carry its tales to every corner of the earth; whilst truth lags behind; her steps slow and solemn, she has neither the vigour nor activity to overtake her enemy. - Thomas Francklin

However, incrementally, but steadily, Mexico is weakening the US every single day.

I can't believe it's a simple binary, good/bad equation. MANY MANY Mexicans have brought their skills and talents to make our land richer. Julian and Joaquin Castro instantly come to mind, though there are many others. And yes, the legal migrants that do the 'shithole' jobs too many of Americans won't do here. The range and numbers are heavily in favor of the US, in contrast to what THEY import from us in the way of talent and labor. BUT....obviously, that may not set off the other ways the US bleeds money from Mexican causes.

And I understand Mexico's role in the drug trade, but....a whore can't sell if she ain't got no Johns. Too many wealthy, white Americans support that, not just the riff-raff.

The scientific principle of diffusion applies: matter will move from a region of higher concentration to a region of lower concentration. Poorer move towards richer. This is not a new dynamic we're experiencing; it has been part of populations for millennia. And the conflict will always be a part of that.

Just reflecting. No brilliant solutions to offer....even if any exist.

However, incrementally, but steadily, Mexico is weakening the US every single day.

I can't believe it's a simple binary, good/bad equation. MANY MANY Mexicans have brought their skills and talents to make our land richer. Julian and Joaquin Castro instantly come to mind, though there are many others.

However, incrementally, but steadily, Mexico is weakening the US every single day.

I can't believe it's a simple binary, good/bad equation. MANY MANY Mexicans have brought their skills and talents to make our land richer. Julian and Joaquin Castro instantly come to mind, though there are many others.

How did Julian and Joaquin Castro "make our land richer"?

They are highly educated, bright political leaders, in a time when those are in short supply.

However, incrementally, but steadily, Mexico is weakening the US every single day.

I can't believe it's a simple binary, good/bad equation. MANY MANY Mexicans have brought their skills and talents to make our land richer. Julian and Joaquin Castro instantly come to mind, though there are many others.

How did Julian and Joaquin Castro "make our land richer"?

They are highly educated, bright political leaders, in a time when those are in short supply.

It would help to have at least one policy they advocate that we wouldn’t have gotten from the politicians who would have been elected in their district, if the Castro brothers were in Mexico.

People have been going back and forth across that border since long before it was a border without it being a problem. The border should be open because none of the justifications for closing it hold water.

_________________Make lots of noise
Kiss lots of boys
Or kiss lots of girls
If that's something you're into
When the straight and narrow
Gets a little too straight
Roll up a joint, or don't
Just follow your arrow
Wherever it points, yeah
Follow your arrow
Wherever it points

People have been going back and forth across that border
since long before it was a border without it being a problem.

Much more forth, than back. Both FDR and Eisenhower thought it was a problem and deported large numbers of illegal aliens from Mexico. That is, people who were established here, as opposed to what we now call deportations - stopping someone before they are established in the country, or after they have committed a crime.

Quote:

The border should be open because none of the justifications for closing it hold water.

What are the justifications for closing it? The reasons for immigration quotas usually go unstated.

I think the main unstated justification on both sides is that they don't want to be overrun - too quickly, or within their lifetime - by Latin America. Per a survey, 1/3 of Mexico (42 million) would like to live in the United States. If the percentage was similar for Central America, that would add another 14 million people. South America at that percentage would add 142 million more. But once that many Spanish (Portuguese in the case of Brazil) speaking people were in the country, it could become an even more popular destination.

And I don't think that you could get away with just opening the country to Latin America. It would be preferential treatment that would end up getting the US open to the world.

Much more forth, than back. Both FDR and Eisenhower thought it was a problem and deported large numbers of illegal aliens from Mexico. That is, people who were established here, as opposed to what we now call deportations - stopping someone before they are established in the country, or after they have committed a crime.

FDR invited and encouraged Mexicans to work in the US during WWII under the Bracero program.

Eisenhower's charmingly named "Operation Wetback" was purely racist in conception and execution. It included deportation of US citizens. Is that really what we want to base our policy on?

Quote:

What are the justifications for closing it?

I'll leave the explanations to someone who wants a closed border.

Quote:

I think the main unstated justification on both sides is that they don't want to be overrun - too quickly, or within their lifetime - by Latin America. Per a survey, 1/3 of Mexico (42 million) would like to live in the United States. If the percentage was similar for Central America, that would add another 14 million people. South America at that percentage would add 142 million more. But once that many Spanish (Portuguese in the case of Brazil) speaking people were in the country, it could become an even more popular destination.

That's like saying 1/3 of Americans would like to live in Beverly Hills. it may be true, but somehow it's not overrun despite having nobody stopping people from moving in.

If they really wanted to come, they would come regardless of border policy. Do you really think there are people in Mexico and points south who are thinking "I want to move to the US, but it's too much paperwork"?

_________________Make lots of noise
Kiss lots of boys
Or kiss lots of girls
If that's something you're into
When the straight and narrow
Gets a little too straight
Roll up a joint, or don't
Just follow your arrow
Wherever it points, yeah
Follow your arrow
Wherever it points

I want an easier path to citizenship, and I want companies held responsible for employing undocumented immigrants, instead of punishing those who risked their lives to be here.

Bingo.

I am not going to condemn people for doing exactly what I would have done if I had been born into poverty, violence, or war because of luck of birth based upon arbitrary lines drawn on a map. The onus for employing undocumented people needs to fall on the people choosing to do so, not the people risking everything for a better life. Policy and our verbage used surrounding the issue needs to reflect that.

Much more forth, than back. Both FDR and Eisenhower thought it was a problem and deported large numbers of illegal aliens from Mexico. That is, people who were established here, as opposed to what we now call deportations - stopping someone before they are established in the country, or after they have committed a crime.

FDR invited and encouraged Mexicans to work in the US during WWII under the Bracero program.

Eisenhower's charmingly named "Operation Wetback" was purely racist in conception and execution. It included deportation of US citizens. Is that really what we want to base our policy on?

It is said in the Wikipedia article that several hundred USA citizens were deported, but that was not a policy (it also says that prior to it, a request came from Mexico to stop Mexicans from entering illegally).

The point of mentioning Eisenhower and FDR deporting large numbers is that while you say "no problem" to their entry, two presidents said "problem". So there are opinions on both sides.

Quote:

Quote:

What are the justifications for closing it?

I'll leave the explanations to someone who wants a closed border.

Which appears to be everybody in Congress and virtually all of the United States.

Quote:

Quote:

I think the main unstated justification on both sides is that they don't want to be overrun - too quickly, or within their lifetime - by Latin America. Per a survey, 1/3 of Mexico (42 million) would like to live in the United States. If the percentage was similar for Central America, that would add another 14 million people. South America at that percentage would add 142 million more. But once that many Spanish (Portuguese in the case of Brazil) speaking people were in the country, it could become an even more popular destination.

That's like saying 1/3 of Americans would like to live in Beverly Hills. it may be true, but somehow it's not overrun despite having nobody stopping people from moving in.

What stops Americans from living in Beverly Hills is very high home prices. That would not be the case with Latin American immigrants as right now illegal immigrants who work for illegal wages are able to find housing in America.

Quote:

If they really wanted to come, they would come regardless of border policy. Do you really think there are people in Mexico and points south who are thinking "I want to move to the US, but it's too much paperwork"?

I don't think they are thinking that, but they are thinking "I want to move to the USA, but I would have to sneak in and live and work illegally". But it is true that as we continually expand what we allow illegal aliens to do (e.g. get special drivers licenses, attend college) the "live and work illegally" is declining as a deterrent and there are always politicians on both sides of the aisle calling for the next amnesty (coded: comprehensive immigration reform). But one thing that hasn't changed is that they are working illegally which means that they make less money and/or are expected to work harder than legal workers. So being legal workers would not be as much of a strain, and would open up jobs like working at the post office or driving a bus.

I want an easier path to citizenship, and I want companies held responsible for employing undocumented immigrants, instead of punishing those who risked their lives to be here.

Nobody wants to significantly try and find, or punish employers for hiring illegal workers. That includes the Democratic and Republican members of Congress. And it also includes Donald Trump. The rich like saving money, and the rich don't want to be punished for saving money by hiring illegal workers over Americans.

I want an easier path to citizenship, and I want companies held responsible for employing undocumented immigrants, instead of punishing those who risked their lives to be here.

Bingo.

I am not going to condemn people for doing exactly what I would have done if I had been born into poverty, violence, or war because of luck of birth based upon arbitrary lines drawn on a map. The onus for employing undocumented people needs to fall on the people choosing to do so, not the people risking everything for a better life. Policy and our verbage used surrounding the issue needs to reflect that.

I want an easier path to citizenship, and I want companies held responsible for employing undocumented immigrants, instead of punishing those who risked their lives to be here.

Bingo.

I am not going to condemn people for doing exactly what I would have done if I had been born into poverty, violence, or war because of luck of birth based upon arbitrary lines drawn on a map. The onus for employing undocumented people needs to fall on the people choosing to do so, not the people risking everything for a better life. Policy and our verbage used surrounding the issue needs to reflect that.

In what way are they "risking everything"?

People die trying to cross our border..

_________________“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie

Much more forth, than back. Both FDR and Eisenhower thought it was a problem and deported large numbers of illegal aliens from Mexico. That is, people who were established here, as opposed to what we now call deportations - stopping someone before they are established in the country, or after they have committed a crime.

FDR invited and encouraged Mexicans to work in the US during WWII under the Bracero program.

Eisenhower's charmingly named "Operation Wetback" was purely racist in conception and execution. It included deportation of US citizens. Is that really what we want to base our policy on?

It is said in the Wikipedia article that several hundred USA citizens were deported, but that was not a policy (it also says that prior to it, a request came from Mexico to stop Mexicans from entering illegally).

The point of mentioning Eisenhower and FDR deporting large numbers is that while you say "no problem" to their entry, two presidents said "problem". So there are opinions on both sides.

FDR had two differing opinions all by himself.

If the Mexicans made a request, we should try to honor it. That's what friends do. I am unaware of them making any such request recently

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

What are the justifications for closing it?

I'll leave the explanations to someone who wants a closed border.

Which appears to be everybody in Congress and virtually all of the United States.

Good, then we shouldn't have any problem finding someone to make that case.

Anything that everyone in congress agrees on can only be a bad thing for the American people.

Quote:

Quote:

If they really wanted to come, they would come regardless of border policy. Do you really think there are people in Mexico and points south who are thinking "I want to move to the US, but it's too much paperwork"?

I don't think they are thinking that, but they are thinking "I want to move to the USA, but I would have to sneak in and live and work illegally". But it is true that as we continually expand what we allow illegal aliens to do (e.g. get special drivers licenses, attend college) the "live and work illegally" is declining as a deterrent and there are always politicians on both sides of the aisle calling for the next amnesty (coded: comprehensive immigration reform). But one thing that hasn't changed is that they are working illegally which means that they make less money and/or are expected to work harder than legal workers. So being legal workers would not be as much of a strain, and would open up jobs like working at the post office or driving a bus.

You really think American laws are deterring people who don't even know what those laws are? There is zero chance that we would be overrun no matter how open the border is or how much we raise the quotas on Central America.

_________________Make lots of noise
Kiss lots of boys
Or kiss lots of girls
If that's something you're into
When the straight and narrow
Gets a little too straight
Roll up a joint, or don't
Just follow your arrow
Wherever it points, yeah
Follow your arrow
Wherever it points

The two opinions were not with regard to the same thing. In the 1930's he deported illegal aliens who had taken permanent residence without respect to employment. The Bracero Program was for temporary seasonal agricultural workers (slightly less than 5% of our current illegal workforce).

Quote:

If the Mexicans made a request, we should try to honor it. That's what friends do. I am unaware of them making any such request recently.

I included that fact only because it was interesting in light of how Mexico has changed its attitude since then.

Quote:

Good, then we shouldn't have any problem finding someone to make that case.

I would bet that nobody wants to offer a case since they can talk about the negative impact excessive population growth, particularly from a non-English speaking group, has on local, state and national government organizations and on workers, but they will alway be hit with charges of racism.

Quote:

You really think American laws are deterring people who don't even know what those laws are? There is zero chance that we would be overrun no matter how open the border is or how much we raise the quotas on Central America.

If the people of Central America weren't aware of USA law regarding immigration, they would show up at border checkpoints along major highways, not trek through remote Mexican ranch land, climb over fences (where they exist) and hike through remote USA ranch land.

If there is zero chance, why do you think the left, which is in the process of fully embracing illegal immigration, hasn't called for open borders? The 28 year old socialist recently elected in New York had "eliminate ICE" on her list of desired policies. She didn't have "remove immigration quotas".

I want an easier path to citizenship, and I want companies held responsible for employing undocumented immigrants, instead of punishing those who risked their lives to be here.

Bingo.

I am not going to condemn people for doing exactly what I would have done if I had been born into poverty, violence, or war because of luck of birth based upon arbitrary lines drawn on a map. The onus for employing undocumented people needs to fall on the people choosing to do so, not the people risking everything for a better life. Policy and our verbage used surrounding the issue needs to reflect that.

In what way are they "risking everything"?

People die trying to cross our border.

OK, a there is a small risk for economic migrants, notably for those who decide to cross in the summer without sufficient water. But asylum seekers, who are the sole focus of the issue of "separation of families", have no risk. They can head to their local American embassy, or if that is viewed as undoable for some reason, they can head to a border checkpoint.

Good, then we shouldn't have any problem finding someone to make that case.

I would bet that nobody wants to offer a case since they can talk about the negative impact excessive population growth, particularly from a non-English speaking group, has on local, state and national government organizations and on workers, but they will alway be hit with charges of racism

More likely they know that there's no real case to be made and that rehashing Know Nothing Party rhetoric from the 1850's is a losing argument.

_________________Make lots of noise
Kiss lots of boys
Or kiss lots of girls
If that's something you're into
When the straight and narrow
Gets a little too straight
Roll up a joint, or don't
Just follow your arrow
Wherever it points, yeah
Follow your arrow
Wherever it points

I want an easier path to citizenship, and I want companies held responsible for employing undocumented immigrants, instead of punishing those who risked their lives to be here.

Bingo.

I am not going to condemn people for doing exactly what I would have done if I had been born into poverty, violence, or war because of luck of birth based upon arbitrary lines drawn on a map. The onus for employing undocumented people needs to fall on the people choosing to do so, not the people risking everything for a better life. Policy and our verbage used surrounding the issue needs to reflect that.

In what way are they "risking everything"?

People die trying to cross our border.

OK, a there is a small risk for economic migrants, notably for those who decide to cross in the summer without sufficient water. But asylum seekers, who are the sole focus of the issue of "separation of families", have no risk. They can head to their local American embassy, or if that is viewed as undoable for some reason, they can head to a border checkpoint.

Asylum seekers have nothing to do with open borders.

_________________“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie